User:ArbitrarilyAssociatedAtoms/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Computational neuroscience

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Computational neuroscience is rapidly growing, as is evidence of its importance. It is not a replacement for experimental research, but rather provides valuable insight throughout the process, and combined the two accomplish more than either could alone. The article provides introductory information into the topic, but does not examine it in great detail.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Content

The article's content is all relevant to the topic, and nothing is apparently inaccurate. However, recent developments are lacking. Furthermore, the article is lacking in detail in all sections. It is also lacking in sections. The article has a good foundation, but is in need of extensive additions.

Tone

The article maintains a neutral tone, but there are disparities in the level of representation of the main points. The "Single-neuron modeling" section is the longest and the most well-supported by citations. The "Motor control," "Consciousness," and "Computational clinical neuroscience" sections, in contrast, are short and supported by little to no ("Motor control") evidence.

Sources

The citation links are functional, and the information in them matches that provided in the article. However, they are generally underutilized, containing much more information than is in the article. At the same time, certain claims in the article are under- or unsourced (see "Tone"). The sources are fairly diverse for their relatively small number (in relation to the large topic), though the vast majority of the books mentioned are published by the same three publishing companies. Also, few recent sources are included: the newest source is from 2019, and all other sources are dated 2018 or earlier.

Talk page

Many discussions revolve around the definition of computational neuroscience, and how it differs from related fields like neuroinformatics, machine learning, and theoretical neuroscience. These discussions are partially resolved, in the sense that they have been discontinued, though the definition still seems to be narrower than some editors believe it should be. The discussion is now closer to resolvable than it was when most of the talk activity occurred, but definitions of computational neuroscience, and its degree of synonymity with other terms, vary. The article is rated as B-Class and low importance in WikiProject Transhumanism, which it is part of. Though, its rating various in other projects where it is of interest: WikiProject Neuroscience (B-class, Top-importance), WikiProject Computer science (B-class, Mid-importance), WikiProject Engineering (B-class, Low-importance), WikiProject Psychology (B-class, Mid-importance), WikiProject Systems (B-Class, High-importance), and WIkiProject Computational Biology (C-class, Top-importance).